Obama still refuses to acknowledge President George W Bush's and the US Military's acccomplisments in Iraq

Disgusting , BO praises the United Nations for a successful Iraqi election.

Obama hails Iraq vote as 'step forward'
Posted Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:28am AEDT
Updated Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:00am AEDT


Elections ... 'This important step forward should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future' (Reuters: Atef Hassan )

Related Story: Iraq voting ends without security breaches US President Barack Obama has praised Iraq's provincial elections as an "important step forward" for the future of the country.

"This important step forward should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future," Mr Obama said in a statement after millions of Iraqis went to the polls to elect councils in 14 or Iraq's 18 provinces.

Security for the country's first ballot since 2005 was extremely tight, with Iraqi police and military deployed in force, and Mr Obama praised the technical assistance by the United Nations and other organisations to Iraq's electoral commission, which he said "performed professionally under difficult circumstances."
Mr Obama said "it is important that the councils get seated, select new governors and begin work on behalf of the Iraqi people who elected them."

Iraq, where US-led forces invaded in 2003 and ousted president Saddam Hussein, is struggling to emerge from years of sectarian strife and to strengthen its fledgling democracy.

Saturday's election (local time) is seen as a key test of Iraq's steadily improving security and political system as Mr Obama seeks a withdrawal from the country in order to shift more troops to Afghanistan.

Last year Mr Obama put forward a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops, but since taking office on January 20, when he said the United States would "begin to responsibly leave Iraq," he has not stated whether he would stick to such a timetable.

Mr Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, has said he wants to redeploy thousands of combat troops from the country to Afghanistan, where conditions have deteriorated and which he says is the prime front against Al Qaeda.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/01/2479310.htm
- AFP

What do you expect Frank... The democrats still can't come to grips with the fact we have won the Iraq war.

Exactly Grim, and not even a mention of the 4000 soldiers who gave their lives either.

And G W Bush is the worst American President in history....

Grim17 wrote:What do you expect Frank... The democrats still can't come to grips with the fact we have won the Iraq war.

Oh please. What did we win? Are we expanding the US borders to include Iraq? Are we getting all of Iraq's oil for free now? We didn't win shit. If we won, then why are we still there fighting? Do you still fight wars that are already won? The only thing accomplished in Iraq was the overthrow of a leader who was no longer useful to us. On to the next victim that we'll suck dry, and then villianize so we can attack them too.

It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or Conservatives or Liberals, right wing, left wing, none of that matters. Obama opposed the war in Iraq as did a lot of other people. This belief was not exclusive to Democrats.

Actually most of the Democrats supported the invasion, it was just a handfull of far left nutjobs like Kuchinich and Obama who opposed it .

So that nutjob convinced America by an overwhelming majority. Seems like the majority of America must be nutjobs too, huh?

Big Slick wrote:So that nutjob convinced America by an overwhelming majority. Seems like the majority of America must be nutjobs too, huh?

Not at all... They were just victims of the main stream media's propaganda campaign to get the Messiah elected. If the American people were told what the man really stood for, and the friends and associates he has surrounded himself with over his entire political life, he would have been defeated in a landslide.

Grim17 wrote:

Big Slick wrote:So that nutjob convinced America by an overwhelming majority. Seems like the majority of America must be nutjobs too, huh?

Not at all... They were just victims of the main stream media's propaganda campaign to get the Messiah elected. If the American people were told what the man really stood for, and the friends and associates he has surrounded himself with over his entire political life, he would have been defeated in a landslide.

Oh I see so the media got him elected. You never cease to amaze me with your bullshit. Tell us Grim, what does the man really stand for?

Wait let me guess...he a muslim socialist who wants to make the US a safe haven for terrists. Who's really buying into the propaganda G?

He was talking about elections that just took place. There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election. George the Lesser had no successes in Iraq, the generals had to drag him kicking and screaming away from Cheney and Rumsfields failed 'lean force' doctrine to implement the 'surge' about 3 years late.

As far as the war being won, that happened in a matter of weeks- it's the occupation that's been the problem. Things have calmed down alot, due in part to the surge of troops, but also because of the ethnic cleansings in Baghdad neighborhoods and the Anbar awakening councils. But nothing has been 'won' yet long term, the lid might still fly off anytime.

As a matter of fact, the Sunni awakening councils, who have been so important in reducing violence, aren't happy with the election results (too much Shia power for their tastes) and are threatening to turn their guns against the government again.

Originally posted by thomasjay
He was talking about elections that just took place. There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election.

Absolutely false .
U.S. soldiers were also out in force, but remained well away from polling centers. The U.S. military assisted in security preparations for the elections, but said troops had a back seat role in the election day operations.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=6774871&page=3

Also remember President George W Bush liberated Iraq , US forces and military advisors trained the Iraqi security forces so President Bush , the US Military and especially those soldiers who gave their lives just so Iraqi's can continue to have free elections for many years absolutely deserve credit.

Are you an American ?

Originally posted by thomasjay the generals had to drag him kicking and screaming away from Cheney and Rumsfields failed 'lean force' doctrine to implement the 'surge' about 3 years late.

Wrong

President Bush acted on the recommendations of General David Patreus when he authorized the surge in Iraq.

Originally posted by thomasjay
George the Lesser had no successes in Iraq,

he captured Saddam Hussein , that's a success

he killed his two muderous sons who had connections with Al-Qeada , that's a success

he killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was responsible for mass bombings and beheadings , that's a success

Iraq now has free elections , that's a success

Iraq is now in control of their own oil , that's a success

President George W Bush , by invading Iraq has kept America safe , that's a success

For you say that there have been no success's in Iraq is a slap in the face of every American soldier, dead or alive, who want to accomplish their mission .

I would expect that disrespect from a foreigner but not from an American citizen.

frankg wrote:Absolutely false .

Partly true, read your own quote. They stayed away from the polling places and took a backseat on election day. Why do you think that was? Maybe because the US military wanted to make sure their presence wasn't obvious so it would be an Iraqi run election? That being the case, it would have been a gaffe of bush-like proportions for our President(that kills you, doesn't it? ) to have credited them with the elections success

Originally posted by thomasjay the generals had to drag him kicking and screaming away from Cheney and Rumsfields failed 'lean force' doctrine to implement the 'surge' about 3 years late.

frankg wrote:Wrong

President Bush acted on the recommendations of General David Patreus when he authorized the surge in Iraq.

Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni along with many others argued for more boots on the ground even before the invasion. Senator John McCain advocated it in 2004. GWB stuck with Rumsfield and his doctrine until things were totally out of hand before finally listening to General Petraeus

he captured Saddam Hussein , that's a success

- Where's Osama bin Hidin'?

he killed his two muderous sons who had connections with Al-Qeada , that's a success

Did he do that with his bare hands? And as nasty as they were, there was no al-Qaeda link. Even the Bush administration acknowledged that. Secular Baathists hate al-Qaeda.

Iraq is now in control of their own oil , that's a success

They were in control of their own oil before the invasion, sanctions not withstanding.

President George W Bush , by invading Iraq has kept America safe , that's a success

Arguable. We'd be a lot safer if he didn't take his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and had taken a tougher line with Pakistan and the Sauds.

For you say that there have been no success's in Iraq is a slap in the face of every American soldier, dead or alive, who want to accomplish their mission .

Try reading slowly and carefully, and then tell me where I said the US military has had no successes in Iraq. Criticizing George W Bush and his incompetent cronies is not criticizing the troops.

Are you an American ?

Every bit as much as you.

Accomplishments?

Lol.

These psychopaths are fortunate not to be being tried for war crimes, the best thing for them to do is be grateful for that, and slink of, like the snakes that they are, Frankie boy.

Lol, accomplishments.

What precisely did they achieve?

Hey, Saddam was many things, but he was a firm opponet of Bin Laden, remember him(?), and it could be argued that he at least stopped more radical factions from taking root in Iraq.

Since his removal, Iraq has not been neutralised.

Uh huh.

Indeed, it is a positive 'mecca' for every radical group you can think of, without Saddam there, they have flooded in.

Throw in the fact that the invasion gives them reason to be resentful, and what do you have? GREATER resentment toward the US, and therefore, an increased threat to the US people.

So,um, no, accomplishments are not a word I would use for them, least not in a positive manner.

Originally posted by thomasjayPartly true, read your own quote. They stayed away from the polling places and took a backseat on election day. Why do you think that was?

Because we have already won in Iraq and its not necessary to maintain the same high profile that they did for the first Iraqi election .

Originally posted by thomasjayThat being the case, it would have been a gaffe of bush-like proportions for our President(that kills you, doesn't it? ) to have credited them with the elections success

Barack Hussein Obama (as does Yeah Well Fine Then who I will get to in a minute) is an extreme leftist and all extreme leftists have a disdain for the US Military. There have been several other cases where BO dissed the US military and US military veterans.

Had it not been for the sacrifices and courage of the US military , and President George W Bush, Iraq would not be haviing elections today and for BO to DELIBRATELY refuse to acknowledge their brave accomplishments , is a slap in the face to all the veterans who served Iraq , its a slap in the face to all who died in Iraq, and its a slap in the face to thier families as well .

He may have won the election but he still has a long way to go to be a President.

Originally posted by thomasjayGenerals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni along with many others argued for more boots on the ground even before the invasion. Senator John McCain advocated it in 2004. GWB stuck with Rumsfield and his doctrine until things were totally out of hand before finally listening to General Petraeus

I agree with you on this , although I believe we had enough troops during the invasion , it was the insurgency that took place afterwards , that I feel President George W Bush screwed up on .

Originally posted by thomasjay- Where's Osama bin Hidin'?

We have not been attacked in over 7 years so why do you care ? Reports are that he is dead. Rhamsi bin al Shihb was the mastermind of 9/11 and he along with all the other conspirators of 9/11 are on death row.

Originally posted by thomasjay- They were in control of their own oil before the invasion, sanctions not withstanding

That's absolutely not true. Remember the "Oil for Food" program ? Everyone from George Galloway, Saddam Hussein , MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS and government officals in the countries of France , Russia and China (who all opposed the invasion of Iraq) were in on screwing the Iraqi people out the profits from the sale of oil .

Originally posted by thomasjay- Arguable. We'd be a lot safer if he didn't take his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and had taken a tougher line with Pakistan and the Sauds.

President George W Bush took his "eye off the ball" because :
1) The US Military was not allowed in Pakistan which is where Bin Laden is and
2) Saddam Hussein was threatening the security of this country and that of the entire Middle East with weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by thomasjay- Try reading slowly and carefully, and then tell me where I said the US military has had no successes in Iraq. Criticizing George W Bush and his incompetent cronies is not criticizing the troops

You are right , I stand corrected.

Originally posted by thomasjay- Every bit as much as you.

A true American would not disrespect the troops and those who gave their lives so freely as you do , by refusing to acknowledge the fact that, had it not been for thier sacrifices, there would be no elections in Iraq today, so I don't believe you are an amercian .

Originally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi The These psychopaths are fortunate not to be being tried for war crimes, the best thing for them to do is be grateful for that, and slink of, like the snakes that they are, Frankie boy.

Why do you hate US Soldiers ?

Originally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi Hey, Saddam was many things, but he was a firm opponet of Bin Laden, remember him(?), and it could be argued that he at least stopped more radical factions from taking root in Iraq.

What radical factions did he stop ?

Originally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi Since his removal, Iraq has not been neutralised.

Yes it has , President George W Bush was victorious in Iraq months ago , the violence is down 95 %, the Iraqi economy is on the rise and Iraq just had their 3rd free election since the fall of Saddam .

IOriginally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi ndeed, it is a positive 'mecca' for every radical group you can think of, without Saddam there, they have flooded inIndeed, it is a positive 'mecca' for every radical group you can think of, without Saddam there, they have flooded in

So if all these "radical groups" are flooding in why is the violence down ?

IOriginally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi Throw in the fact that the invasion gives them reason to be resentful, and what do you have? GREATER resentment toward the US, and therefore, an increased threat to the US people

.

Sorry, but I dont' believe that for a minute , so I'm gonna need a link to back up your statement here Stevie-boy.

Originally posted by The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi So,um, no, accomplishments are not a word I would use for them, least not in a positive manner

I'm not surprised , coming from a HAMAS supporter

frankg wrote:Barack Hussein Obama... is an extreme leftist and all extreme leftists have a disdain for the US Military. There have been several other cases where BO dissed the US military and US military veterans.

Frank, that's simply not true on both counts. President Obama is hardly an extreme leftist, he's nominated Republicans and moderate Democrats for his cabinet , and reached sincerely across party lines. And if you've actually read his domestic and foreign policy positions in full, they can be considered extreme left only if you also consider many of Dwight Eisenhowers, Richard Nixons, Henry Kissingers, GHW Bushs, Brent Scowcrofts, Robert Gates and Colin Powells positions extreme left. Which if you do suggests you may be a bit of a rightwing extremist yourself. And if you could stomach going to any Democratic-leaning message boards, you'd see there's huge arguments going on between the real lefties who thinks he betrayed them, and the sane ones telling them if they paid attention to what he said during the campaign, he was never one of them.

President Obama has never shown disdain for the US military or military veterans. Do you remember his first stop in DC for the inauguration? Arlington Cemetary where he laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. What disdain, huh Frank? I could go on, but since it's your assertion it's your burden to prove it. Link some news articles, not op-eds, from legitimate news sources showing where he has dissed the US Military or Veterans. And don't just ignore the ones about where he has honored them and fought for an improved VA system.

I agree with you on this , although I believe we had enough troops during the invasion , it was the insurgency that took place afterwards , that I feel President George W Bush screwed up on .

Glad to see we can agree on something. I thought the way the Taliban were toppled in Afghanistan was absolutely brilliant, and the actual invasion and war in Iraq was brilliant from a military standpoint, though from a strategic standpoint it was the biggest blunder since the War of 1812 imo. I also think the screwup came before the insurgency ever started. Disbanding the army and police and throwing every low level Baathist out of the government is mainly what caused the insugency, we didn't even do all of that with Germany. Paul Bremers policies had alot to do with it too.

Originally posted by thomasjay- Where's Osama bin Hidin'?
We have not been attacked in over 7 years so why do you care ? Reports are that he is dead. Rhamsi bin al Shihb was the mastermind of 9/11 and he along with all the other conspirators of 9/11 are on death row.

I care for several reasons. Number one, not being attacked on US soil in 7 years proves nothing. The first WTC bombing was in February, 1992, the second in September 2001, you do the math. Are you familiar at all with the far-war and near-war strategy of jihadis? Secondly, GWB promised he was going to get Osama dead or alive. Osama bin Laden attacked us, not Saddam Hussein. Claiming capturing Saddam Hussein as a great GWB success while ignoring his abject failure to capture bin Laden is kind of grasping for straws on your part.

Originally posted by thomasjay- They were in control of their own oil before the invasion, sanctions not withstanding
That's absolutely not true. Remember the "Oil for Food" program ? Everyone from George Galloway, Saddam Hussein , MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS and government officals in the countries of France , Russia and China (who all opposed the invasion of Iraq) were in on screwing the Iraqi people out the profits from the sale of oil .

Frank, they were making profits by bypassing sanctions giving the Iraqi oil company a lower cut because of the blackmarket aspect of it. They weren't controlling Iraqi oil and had no control over how the Iraqi government used the payment for the people. Now the Iraqi government is cutting deals with the Chinese as well as western private corporations. How's that going to benefit the Iraqi people anymore than Exxon mobil and Chevron benefit you and me? The only time the people of a nation benefit from the direct sale of oil is when it's nationalized under a democratic socialist government. That's not what you're advocating for , is it Frank?

Originally posted by thomasjay- Arguable. We'd be a lot safer if he didn't take his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and had taken a tougher line with Pakistan and the Sauds.
President George W Bush took his "eye off the ball" because :
1) The US Military was not allowed in Pakistan which is where Bin Laden is

Frank- step back a minute and think of the hypocrisy of what you just said- We were not allowed into Pakistan but we were allowed into Iraq ? Do you have any knowledge of international law? Have you not heard of hot pursuit? Did you agree with GWB when he said any nation that supports and harbors terrorists will be considered an enemy of the United States and might be subjected to military action? That's one of his rare policies that I absolutely agree with, as does President Obama. A top officer from the Pakistani ISI has been firmly established as having sent funds to the 9/11 hijackers, yet he's never been charged by anybody.

2) Saddam Hussein was threatening the security of this country and that of the entire Middle East with weapons of mass destruction.

Nonsense Frank. Iraq was in no way an immediate threat to the security of this country. The only weapons of mass destruction he might have had left were some old degraded junk from the Iran- Iraq war era. Weapons that were obtained with the assistance of Rumsfield and Cheney by the way, which is maybe why they were so nervous about them. His conventional military was a skeleton of the ineffective force we routed in the 1st gulf war. He was contained by the Northern and Southern no-fly zones, and our intel was top-notch. He couldn't pee without us knowing. It's non-state actors we've had intel problems with.

A true American would not disrespect the troops and those who gave their lives so freely as you do , by refusing to acknowledge the fact that, had it not been for thier sacrifices, there would be no elections in Iraq today, so I don't believe you are an amercian .

I'm following my 10 minute rule with you Frankieboy, but this will nevertheless come across a little harsh I'm afraid.
First off, I have never disrespected the troops, as you've previously acknowledged.
Secondly, I very much resent your accusations that I'm un-American or un-Patriotic. I have very deep personal connections to this country. My earliest traced ancestor on my moms side came in through Jamestowne Colony. An ancestor was a blacksmith foreman at Mt Vernon and fought with the Virginia militia in the Revolutionary War. Mayfield, Kentucky is named after one of my ancestors, as is Bollinger county, Missouri. Henry Clay was a member of my family line. My Dads father immigrated here at 14 from Austro-Hungary and was an artilleryman in Pershings army in France at 17. My Dad did 6 missions from Henderson field on Guadalcanal before getting called back stateside to the 9th MAW developing onboard radar for B-25s, F6F-Ns and F4U-Ns. My uncle was a gunners mate on the light cruiser USS Phoenix at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941.

And unless you have a degree in history, have researched all kinds of primary source documents and read every history book you could get your hands for 40 years, I guarantee my knowledge of this country's history, world history and geo-politics absolutely dwarfs yours.

I'm sure if we were face to face, you wouldn't have the guts to say those types of things to me, and if you were stupid enough to, you'd strongly regret it as you picked yourself up from the floor.

So why don't you cut it out with the nonsense, and maybe we can have some productive discussions and find some common ground.

And btw, having Al Pacinos character from Taxi Driver as your avatar along with your proffessed hatred of the President maybe isn't such a smart thing. The secret service has been a little touchy lately.

ROFLMFAO!!!

Frankie's congratulatory list of G-Dub's successes should rightly include bankrupting America and fighting the "terrists". WHAT A LEGACY!

Thanks Bush!

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, that's simply not true on both counts. President Obama is hardly an extreme leftist, and reached sincerely across party lines.

He was judged by the nonpartisan National Journal to have the most liberal voting record in 2007 of any senator.
http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/revealing-barack-obama-far-left-liberal-he

Add to that his close relationships with William Ayers and Reverend Wright . These two personafy the far left.

Barack Obama is also a socialist , he hates white middle class america and wants to "Spread the wealth" . He is also considering taxing 401's.

Barack Obama is also a racist, did you catch the speech by Reverend Joesph Lowery? ....."when white will vote what is right " ? Obama in the background is knodding his head and smiling.

"I won" ....that Obama's response to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders . How is that reaching across party lines Thomas ?

Originally posted by thomasjay
Link some news articles, not op-eds, from legitimate news sources showing where he has dissed the US Military or Veterans. And don't just ignore the ones about where he has honored them and fought for an improved VA system.

Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out Heroes Inaugural Ball honoring recipients of the Medal of Honor. And while 48 of the nation's 99 living recipients of the Medal of Honor attended the event, reports the Cleveland Leader and various self-attested attendees of the ball, newly sworn-in President Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/inaugural_ball.htm


Barack Hussein Obama cancelled plans to visit two U.S. military bases while in Germany, this despite having all kinds of time to speak to gushing Berliners as well as getting in a workout at the Ritz Carlton.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/24/obama-snubs-injured-soldiers-workout-will-media-care

Here's a letter from an Army Captain of how Barack Hussein Obama hates US soldiers

Subject: An Army Captain's view of Hussein Obama's Visit

Subject: Obama's Visit

Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country. If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

In service,

CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier

Obama refused to do a military townhall for 6,000 veterans, service members, and military families at Fort Hood, Texas. That event would have taken place tonight, but Obama spokesman, Phillip Carter, said at the time Obama couldn't make it because “we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed.” But Obama doesn't have another event scheduled for this evening -- he's busy bodyboarding in Hawaii. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/democrats_call_their_conventio.asp

Ok Thomas I guess Barack Hussein Obama did visit the Marine Corps Base Hawaii ,on Christmas ,near his rented vacation home and briefly chatted with enlisted members who ate turkey, ham and roast beef. He didn’t make formal remarks or speak to reporters during the stop, one of the few public sightings of the president-elect on what aides call a private family vacation.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081225/NEWS07/81225027/0/BUSINESS06/Obama+visits+troops+in+Hawaii+during+Christmas+dinner

Originally posted by thomasjay
Glad to see we can agree on something. I thought the way the Taliban were toppled in Afghanistan was absolutely brilliant, and the actual invasion and war in Iraq was brilliant from a military standpoint, though from a strategic standpoint it was the biggest blunder since the War of 1812 imo.

It cost us a lot of American lives and its too bad our military intell didn't have the foresight to see that was going to happen . I agree ,the surge should have happened sooner.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I care for several reasons. Number one, not being attacked on US soil in 7 years proves nothing. The first WTC bombing was in February, 1992, the second in September 2001, you do the math. Are you familiar at all with the far-war and near-war strategy of jihadis?

Not being attacked in 7 years proves nothing Thomas?

What about the attacks that were occurring in Bali , Madrid , London , Riyahd , Jordan , Russia and Pakistan ?

That proves that President George W Bush has protected this country , since 9/11 , from terrorism , while other countries have been attacked .

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, they were making profits by bypassing sanctions giving the Iraqi oil company a lower cut because of the blackmarket aspect of it. They weren't controlling Iraqi oil and had no control over how the Iraqi government used the payment for the people. Now the Iraqi government is cutting deals with the Chinese as well as western private corporations. How's that going to benefit the Iraqi people anymore than Exxon mobil and Chevron benefit you and me? The only time the people of a nation benefit from the direct sale of oil is when it's nationalized under a democratic socialist government. That's not what you're advocating for , is it Frank?

The Iraqi people never saw any food at all and the Saddam's regime raked in the profits.

The scheme is alleged to have worked in this way: individuals and organizations sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, or those just easily bribed, were offered oil contracts through the Oil-for-Food Programme. These contracts for Iraqi oil could then be sold on the open world market and the seller was allowed to keep a transaction fee, said to be between $0.15 and $0.50/barrel (0.94 and 3.14 $/m³) of oil sold. The seller was then to refund the Iraqi government a certain percentage of the commission.

Contracts to sell Iraq humanitarian goods through the Oil-for-Food Programme were given to companies and individuals based on their willingness to kick back a certain percentage of the contract profits to the Iraqi regime. Companies that sold commodities via the Oil-for-Food Programme were overcharging by up to 10%, with part of the overcharged amount being diverted into private bank accounts for Saddam Hussein and other regime officials and the other part being kept by the supplier.

The involvement of the UN itself in the scandal began in February 2004 after the name of Benon Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food Programme, appeared on the Iraqi Oil Ministry's documents. Sevan allegedly was given vouchers for at least 11,000,000 barrels (1,700,000 m³) of oil, worth some $3.5 million. Sevan has denied the charges

Looks like we got there just in time

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank- step back a minute and think of the hypocrisy of what you just said- We were not allowed into Pakistan but we were allowed into Iraq ? Do you have any knowledge of international law? Have you not heard of hot pursuit? Did you agree with GWB when he said any nation that supports and harbors terrorists will be considered an enemy of the United States and might be subjected to military action?

Pakistan has proved to be a valuable ally against Al-Qeada while Iraq was a clear and present danger to the security of not only this country but that of the entire middle east.
That was one of the main agreements with Pervez Musharef that President George W Bush had to abide by when we invaded Afganistan and I think it was a good decision , any presence of US military in Pakistan would've most certainly resulted in civil war.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Nonsense Frank. Iraq was in no way an immediate threat to the security of this country. The only weapons of mass destruction he might have had left were some old degraded junk from the Iran- Iraq war era.

Did you see the interview on 60 minutes with George Piro , his CIA interrogator ?

Piro seemed to gain the Saddam's confidence and he got Saddam to admit that he was blufffing to make Israel and Iran think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, however Saddam also managed to convince other foreign intelligence agencies of that as well .

George Tenet stated that Iraq "was a slam dunk" and President George W Bush acted on his advice , he defended this country against a percieved , credible threat.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I'm following my 10 minute rule with you Frankieboy, but this will nevertheless come across a little harsh I'm afraid.
First off, I have never disrespected the troops, as you've previously acknowledged.

The hell you didn't, here's your statement :

There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Secondly, I very much resent your accusations that I'm un-American or un-Patriotic. I have very deep personal connections to this country. My earliest traced ancestor on my moms side came in through Jamestowne Colony. An ancestor was a blacksmith foreman at Mt Vernon and fought with the Virginia militia in the Revolutionary War. Mayfield, Kentucky is named after one of my ancestors, as is Bollinger county, Missouri. Henry Clay was a member of my family line. My Dads father immigrated here at 14 from Austro-Hungary and was an artilleryman in Pershings army in France at 17. My Dad did 6 missions from Henderson field on Guadalcanal before getting called back stateside to the 9th MAW developing onboard radar for B-25s, F6F-Ns and F4U-Ns. My uncle was a gunners mate on the light cruiser USS Phoenix at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941.

I was almost in the service myself Thomas, my draft number was 38 in 1973 , I had completed my pre-induction physical and was ready to serve but lucky for me Gerald Ford ended the draft.

But its not really relevant today is it .

Originally posted by thomasjay
And unless you have a degree in history, have researched all kinds of primary source documents and read every history book you could get your hands for 40 years, I guarantee my knowledge of this country's history, world history and geo-politics absolutely dwarfs yours

.
Wow Thomas , you must be really smart , much smarter than me , but that's really not saying a whole lot . Seriously ,get over yourself.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I'm sure if we were face to face, you wouldn't have the guts to say those types of things to me, and if you were stupid enough to, you'd strongly regret it as you picked yourself up from the floor

Here's how it would go Thomas :

You disrespect the troops who served in Iraq

I call you un-American

You sucker-punch me to the floor

I , not being a violent person , wip out my cell and dial 911 to report an assault

Within a few minutes the police arrive and I am pressing charges while watching you being handcuffed , read your rights and put in a cruiser.

So I would not be afraid to tell you to your face Thomas that you are un-American . If you are such a tough guy I suggest you walk up to the next US soldier and tell him / her that that their pain and sacrifice in Iran , or Afganistan doesn't deserve any recognition.

Originally posted by thomasjay
So why don't you cut it out with the nonsense, and maybe we can have some productive discussions and find some common ground.

How about this Thomas , you retract or rephrase your statement :
[quote]There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election.[/quote]
and I will retract mine.

Originally posted by thomasjay
And btw, having Al Pacinos character from Taxi Driver as your avatar along with your proffessed hatred of the President maybe isn't such a smart thing. The secret service has been a little touchy lately

I've got nothing to hide , if the CIA wants listen in on my phone calls or read my emails in the interest of homeland security then I have no problem with that and btw , that's not Al Pacino.

Grim17 wrote:What do you expect Frank... The democrats still can't come to grips with the fact we have won the Iraq war.

Okay. Who is "we?" And what did we "win?"

Frankg wrote:Exactly Grim, and not even a mention of the 4000 soldiers who gave their lives either.

You mean the ones who mostly were killed after this?:



Gee, I thought "major combat operations had ended?"

Frankg wrote:Actually most of the Democrats supported the invasion, it was just a handfull of far left nutjobs like Kuchinich and Obama who opposed it .

Um, no. The did not vote for an "invasion." The voted to allow for the use of force in the failure of diplomacy Bush never bothered with...

Grim17 wrote:

Big Slick wrote:So that nutjob convinced America by an overwhelming majority. Seems like the majority of America must be nutjobs too, huh?

Not at all... They were just victims of the main stream media's propaganda campaign to get the Messiah elected. If the American people were told what the man really stood for, and the friends and associates he has surrounded himself with over his entire political life, he would have been defeated in a landslide.

And I thought conservatives were supposed to take responsibility for their failures....

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay

Frank, that's simply not true on both counts. President Obama is hardly an extreme leftist, and reached sincerely across party lines.

He was judged by the nonpartisan National Journal to have the most liberal voting record in 2007 of any senator.
http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/revealing-barack-obama-far-left-liberal-he

That's true Frank, but it hardly makes him an extreme leftist. If you'd read the NJ article, rather than just taking a snip off an opposition campaign blog you'd understand the political machinations behind it. They didn't track John McCain because he didn't make enough votes in 2007, but I bet if they did you'd have seen his voting record move more in line with the conservative base during the same time.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
Link some news articles, not op-eds, from legitimate news sources showing where he has dissed the US Military or Veterans. And don't just ignore the ones about where he has honored them and fought for an improved VA system.

I ask you to link legitimate news sources and you give me the weekly standard and newbusters.You crack me up, did you do that on purpose?. No different than a leftwing looney citing workers world weekly and the daily show blog and expecting to be taken seriously.

frankg wrote:Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out Heroes Inaugural Ball honoring recipients of the Medal of Honor. And while 48 of the nation's 99 living recipients of the Medal of Honor attended the event, reports the Cleveland Leader and various self-attested attendees of the ball, newly sworn-in President Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/inaugural_ball.htm

Frank, do you even read what you cite, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?From your source above:

Description: Forwarded email
Circulating since: Jan. 2009
Status: True / Misleading

It's a fact that Barack Obama did not attend the American Legion's Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet and Ball recognizing Medal of Honor recipients (Vice-President Biden attended instead), and it's a fact that he was the first newly elected president to miss the event since its inception in 1953.

In point of fact, Obama didn't show up at any of the dozens of unofficial balls and galas sponsored by entities other than the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

He did, however, attend the official Commander-in-Chief's Ball honoring all U.S. servicemembers, the guest list of which included Medal of Honor and Purple Heart recipients, hundreds of wounded soldiers (and their families) from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and spouses of troops currently deployed overseas. He saluted America's men and women in uniform during brief remarks:

"It is wonderful to be surrounded by some of the very best and bravest Americans," the President said. "Your courage, grace and your patriotism inspire us all. To you, and to all those watching around the world, know that as president, I will have no greater honor or responsibility than serving as your commander in chief."

Opinions will vary on whether or to what extent the above constitutes a "snub" against the nation's military heroes.


Excerpt of statement from the American Legion:

From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear.

I think what they're trying to say in a nice way frank, is that only real wingnuts would grab onto this as being an affront to the moh recipients or military in general.

frankg wrote:Here's a letter from an Army Captain of how Barack Hussein Obama hates US soldiers

Subject: An Army Captain's view of Hussein Obama's Visit

Frank, my gullible friend. Let me give you some advice. If you get an email about someone with your last name who died leaving millions of dollars,do not give them your bank account number to wire the money into. It's a scam, just like this letter.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
I can't copy the text off snopes, so that saves you a little embarrassment anyway. But hey, better you fell for this one than one of those nigerian scams. I'm glad I warned you about those in time.I was in time, wasn't I frank?

frankg wrote:Not being attacked in 7 years proves nothing Thomas?

What about the attacks that were occurring in Bali , Madrid , London , Riyahd , Jordan , Russia and Pakistan ?

That proves that President George W Bush has protected this country , since 9/11 , from terrorism , while other countries have been attacked .

After the first WTC attacks what about the attacks that occurred in Russia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen,Egypt,Pakistan, India,and other countries?

That proves that President William Jefferson Clinton protected this country,for even longer,from terrorism,while other countries had been attacked.(it's almost painful imitating your mis-punctuation!)
Right frank? Frank...?

frankg wrote:The Iraqi people never saw any food at all and the Saddam's regime raked in the profits.

Your unsourced copy & paste does nothing to support your claim that Iraq didn't control it's own oil. Whatever corruption went on in the oil for food program and however much of a vile pos he was, Saddams regime was the Iraqi government, and they controlled the oil just like the current government does.It never was, and is not now "The Peoples Oil". All this talk about the Iraqi people and oil, you're starting to sound like a socialist or worse frank.

frankg wrote:Pakistan has proved to be a valuable ally against Al-Qeada while Iraq was a clear and present danger to the security of not only this country but that of the entire middle east.
That was one of the main agreements with Pervez Musharef that President George W Bush had to abide by when we invaded Afganistan and I think it was a good decision , any presence of US military in Pakistan would've most certainly resulted in civil war.

You've really had the wool pulled over your eyes on this one,frank.Pakistan has played us like a fiddle.So they threw us a few overly hot al-Qaeda operatives as a bone to placate us, it doesn't change the facts that the ISI wired money to the 9/11 hijackers,setup the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan has been al-Qaedas and the Talibans safe haven and base of operations since they were run out of Afghanistan.Pakistan, with the groups getting private Saudi and other gulf state backing either directly or through the ISI, is the hub of Islamic extremism.Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input
https://talkusdown.forumotion.com/political-chat-f1/forget-israel-palestine-a-minute-let-s-talk-pakistan-t201.htm#4862

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay

Nonsense Frank. Iraq was in no way an immediate threat to the security of this country. The only weapons of mass destruction he might have had left were some old degraded junk from the Iran- Iraq war era.

Did you see the interview on 60 minutes with George Piro , his CIA interrogator ?

Piro seemed to gain the Saddam's confidence and he got Saddam to admit that he was blufffing to make Israel and Iran think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, however Saddam also managed to convince other foreign intelligence agencies of that as well .

George Tenet stated that Iraq "was a slam dunk" and President George W Bush acted on his advice , he defended this country against a percieved , credible threat.

I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region. And yes, I did see it.
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together.Instead, other than the UK and Australia, we had token troops from the 'Coalition of little countries that could really use some extra US foreign aid"
And he also didn't fool most of our CIA and NSA analysts,which is why Cheney had to create the parallel ISG.George Tenet is a good man,and a real team player. I think he might have gotten caught up in giving President George W Bush and the other members of the team what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to hear.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
First off, I have never disrespected the troops, as you've previously acknowledged.
The hell you didn't, here's your statement :
There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they weren't involved with security for this election.

Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong. And I also pointed out to you that according to your article the US military had intentionally stayed in the background, especially on election day. That was a military decision,General Odiernos or above.Obviously they wouldn't want the POTUS pointing out they were there, so there's no reason for you to be offended, or for this thread to even exist.But it's giving us a chance to get to know each other frank, so I'm glad you started it.

frankg wrote:I was almost in the service myself Thomas, my draft number was 38 in 1973 , I had completed my pre-induction physical and was ready to serve but lucky for me Gerald Ford ended the draft.

But its not really relevant today is it .

Just in that we can be thankful we've had a bunch of brave young men and women who have been volunteering since 1973.

frankg wrote:Here's how it would go Thomas :

You disrespect the troops who served in Iraq

We can really end this bit of silliness right here. Your scenario is implausible because I have never and would never disrespect the troops who served in Iraq. I know several personally.I would never disrespect the US military or anyones service, whether they're vfw or not. I might disrespect them for other reasons, but not their service.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
So why don't you cut it out with the nonsense, and maybe we can have some productive discussions and find some common ground.

How about this Thomas , you retract or rephrase your statement :

There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election.

and I will retract mine.

I already corrected mine frank, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.

frankg wrote:and btw , that's not Al Pacino.

I know, I always mixup young DeNiro and young Pacino for some reason. Great movie, saw it in the theater when it first came out

thomasjay wrote:

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay

Frank, that's simply not true on both counts. President Obama is hardly an extreme leftist, and reached sincerely across party lines.

He was judged by the nonpartisan National Journal to have the most liberal voting record in 2007 of any senator.
http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/revealing-barack-obama-far-left-liberal-he

That's true Frank, but it hardly makes him an extreme leftist. If you'd read the NJ article, rather than just taking a snip off an opposition campaign blog you'd understand the political machinations behind it. They didn't track John McCain because he didn't make enough votes in 2007, but I bet if they did you'd have seen his voting record move more in line with the conservative base during the same time.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
Link some news articles, not op-eds, from legitimate news sources showing where he has dissed the US Military or Veterans. And don't just ignore the ones about where he has honored them and fought for an improved VA system.

I ask you to link legitimate news sources and you give me the weekly standard and newbusters.You crack me up, did you do that on purpose?. No different than a leftwing looney citing workers world weekly and the daily show blog and expecting to be taken seriously.

frankg wrote:Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out Heroes Inaugural Ball honoring recipients of the Medal of Honor. And while 48 of the nation's 99 living recipients of the Medal of Honor attended the event, reports the Cleveland Leader and various self-attested attendees of the ball, newly sworn-in President Barack Hussein Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/inaugural_ball.htm

Frank, do you even read what you cite, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?From your source above:

Description: Forwarded email
Circulating since: Jan. 2009
Status: True / Misleading

It's a fact that Barack Obama did not attend the American Legion's Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet and Ball recognizing Medal of Honor recipients (Vice-President Biden attended instead), and it's a fact that he was the first newly elected president to miss the event since its inception in 1953.

In point of fact, Obama didn't show up at any of the dozens of unofficial balls and galas sponsored by entities other than the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

He did, however, attend the official Commander-in-Chief's Ball honoring all U.S. servicemembers, the guest list of which included Medal of Honor and Purple Heart recipients, hundreds of wounded soldiers (and their families) from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and spouses of troops currently deployed overseas. He saluted America's men and women in uniform during brief remarks:

"It is wonderful to be surrounded by some of the very best and bravest Americans," the President said. "Your courage, grace and your patriotism inspire us all. To you, and to all those watching around the world, know that as president, I will have no greater honor or responsibility than serving as your commander in chief."

Opinions will vary on whether or to what extent the above constitutes a "snub" against the nation's military heroes.


Excerpt of statement from the American Legion:

From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear.

I think what they're trying to say in a nice way frank, is that only real wingnuts would grab onto this as being an affront to the moh recipients or military in general.

frankg wrote:Here's a letter from an Army Captain of how Barack Hussein Obama hates US soldiers

Subject: An Army Captain's view of Hussein Obama's Visit

Frank, my gullible friend. Let me give you some advice. If you get an email about someone with your last name who died leaving millions of dollars,do not give them your bank account number to wire the money into. It's a scam, just like this letter.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
I can't copy the text off snopes, so that saves you a little embarrassment anyway. But hey, better you fell for this one than one of those nigerian scams. I'm glad I warned you about those in time.I was in time, wasn't I frank?

frankg wrote:Not being attacked in 7 years proves nothing Thomas?

What about the attacks that were occurring in Bali , Madrid , London , Riyahd , Jordan , Russia and Pakistan ?

That proves that President George W Bush has protected this country , since 9/11 , from terrorism , while other countries have been attacked .

After the first WTC attacks what about the attacks that occurred in Russia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen,Egypt,Pakistan, India,and other countries?

That proves that President William Jefferson Clinton protected this country,for even longer,from terrorism,while other countries had been attacked.(it's almost painful imitating your mis-punctuation!)
Right frank? Frank...?

frankg wrote:The Iraqi people never saw any food at all and the Saddam's regime raked in the profits.

Your unsourced copy & paste does nothing to support your claim that Iraq didn't control it's own oil. Whatever corruption went on in the oil for food program and however much of a vile pos he was, Saddams regime was the Iraqi government, and they controlled the oil just like the current government does.It never was, and is not now "The Peoples Oil". All this talk about the Iraqi people and oil, you're starting to sound like a socialist or worse frank.

frankg wrote:Pakistan has proved to be a valuable ally against Al-Qeada while Iraq was a clear and present danger to the security of not only this country but that of the entire middle east.
That was one of the main agreements with Pervez Musharef that President George W Bush had to abide by when we invaded Afganistan and I think it was a good decision , any presence of US military in Pakistan would've most certainly resulted in civil war.

You've really had the wool pulled over your eyes on this one,frank.Pakistan has played us like a fiddle.So they threw us a few overly hot al-Qaeda operatives as a bone to placate us, it doesn't change the facts that the ISI wired money to the 9/11 hijackers,setup the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan has been al-Qaedas and the Talibans safe haven and base of operations since they were run out of Afghanistan.Pakistan, with the groups getting private Saudi and other gulf state backing either directly or through the ISI, is the hub of Islamic extremism.Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input
https://talkusdown.forumotion.com/political-chat-f1/forget-israel-palestine-a-minute-let-s-talk-pakistan-t201.htm#4862

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay

Nonsense Frank. Iraq was in no way an immediate threat to the security of this country. The only weapons of mass destruction he might have had left were some old degraded junk from the Iran- Iraq war era.

Did you see the interview on 60 minutes with George Piro , his CIA interrogator ?

Piro seemed to gain the Saddam's confidence and he got Saddam to admit that he was blufffing to make Israel and Iran think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, however Saddam also managed to convince other foreign intelligence agencies of that as well .

George Tenet stated that Iraq "was a slam dunk" and President George W Bush acted on his advice , he defended this country against a percieved , credible threat.

I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region. And yes, I did see it.
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together.Instead, other than the UK and Australia, we had token troops from the 'Coalition of little countries that could really use some extra US foreign aid"
And he also didn't fool most of our CIA and NSA analysts,which is why Cheney had to create the parallel ISG.George Tenet is a good man,and a real team player. I think he might have gotten caught up in giving President George W Bush and the other members of the team what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to hear.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
First off, I have never disrespected the troops, as you've previously acknowledged.
The hell you didn't, here's your statement :
There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they weren't involved with security for this election.

Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong. And I also pointed out to you that according to your article the US military had intentionally stayed in the background, especially on election day. That was a military decision,General Odiernos or above.Obviously they wouldn't want the POTUS pointing out they were there, so there's no reason for you to be offended, or for this thread to even exist.But it's giving us a chance to get to know each other frank, so I'm glad you started it.

frankg wrote:I was almost in the service myself Thomas, my draft number was 38 in 1973 , I had completed my pre-induction physical and was ready to serve but lucky for me Gerald Ford ended the draft.

But its not really relevant today is it .

Just in that we can be thankful we've had a bunch of brave young men and women who have been volunteering since 1973.

frankg wrote:Here's how it would go Thomas :

You disrespect the troops who served in Iraq

We can really end this bit of silliness right here. Your scenario is implausible because I have never and would never disrespect the troops who served in Iraq. I know several personally.I would never disrespect the US military or anyones service, whether they're vfw or not. I might disrespect them for other reasons, but not their service.

frankg wrote:Originally posted by thomasjay
So why don't you cut it out with the nonsense, and maybe we can have some productive discussions and find some common ground.

How about this Thomas , you retract or rephrase your statement :

There was no reason to acknowledge the US military's past successes, since they were'nt involved with security for this election.

and I will retract mine.

I already corrected mine frank, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.

frankg wrote:and btw , that's not Al Pacino.

I know, I always mixup young DeNiro and young Pacino for some reason. Great movie, saw it in the theater when it first came out

Our troops were misused by the Bush administration and were given a near impossible task. They've done as well as possible given the circumstances. Bush, and his shadow President Cheney, had intentions to do away with Sadam Hussein as soon as they entered office. 9/11 and fake wmd claims gave them reasons to implement their plans. They used the military not for security and defending America, but for political revenge. Their grand idea of rebuilding Iraq in the American ideal of Democracy to 'shine as a beacon' in the middle east was the height of arrogance and self-righteous zeal. They both (and others involved) should be prosecuted, if not in this country then in the World Court.

counterpoint wrote:Our troops were misused by the Bush administration and were given a near impossible task. They've done as well as possible given the circumstances. Bush, and his shadow President Cheney, had intentions to do away with Sadam Hussein as soon as they entered office. 9/11 and fake wmd claims gave them reasons to implement their plans. They used the military not for security and defending America, but for political revenge. Their grand idea of rebuilding Iraq in the American ideal of Democracy to 'shine as a beacon' in the middle east was the height of arrogance and self-righteous zeal. They both (and others involved) should be prosecuted, if not in this country then in the World Court.

I could not agree more.

But you just know this ain't gonna happen.

What IS the process for such a thing, out of interest?

Originally posted by thomasjay
That's true Frank, but it hardly makes him an extreme leftist. If you'd read the NJ article, rather than just taking a snip off an opposition campaign blog you'd understand the political machinations behind it. They didn't track John McCain because he didn't make enough votes in 2007, but I bet if they did you'd have seen his voting record move more in line with the conservative base during the same time.

My apologies

Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories

.http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, do you even read what you cite, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?From your source above:

I do have my GED which is nothing to sneeze at thomas, however my article did state that Barack Hussein Obama has been the first president ever, to skip the American Legion Heroes Ball.

The Comander in Chiefs Ball is a an inaugural event that was organized b President George W Bush in 2005 to honor the those CURRENT military members serviing in Iraq and Afganistan. .

President George W Bush attended the Heroes Ball and the Commander in Chiefs Ball and from I’ve read about Kevin Bacon it looks like he embellished the troops reaction to Barack Hussein Obama

Originally posted by thomasjay
When the president emerged waving from a giant backdrop lit with stars and stripes, the troops, including 300 invited wounded warriors from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and their families, erupted in jubilation

Gimme a break, the troops don’t LOVE Barack Hussein Obama , as a matter of fact , they don’t even like him, on the other hand the troops do love President George W Bush

.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I think what they're trying to say in a nice way frank, is that only real wingnuts would grab onto this as being an affront to the moh recipients or military in general.

I think the American Legion knows that you “don’t shit where you eat”
[quote]

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, my gullible friend. Let me give you some advice. If you get an email about someone with your last name who died leaving millions of dollars,do not give them your bank account number to wire the money into. It's a scam, just like this letter.

Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm


After the first WTC attacks what about the attacks that occurred in Russia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen,Egypt,Pakistan, India,and other countries?

Originally posted by thomasjay
That proves that President William Jefferson Clinton protected this country,for even longer,from terrorism,while other countries had been attacked.(it's almost painful imitating your mis-punctuation!)
Right frank? Frank...?

Protect this country ? Not by a longshot . President William Jefferson Clinton had higher pritorities than protecting this country Thomas, like a blowjob from Monica.
Bill Clinton had many chances to take Bin Laden into custody but he was too wrapped up with “other things” , Bill Clinton by his Indecisiveness is indirectly responsible for 9/11 .

Originally posted by thomasjay
Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input

But President George W Bush has “ contained” Bin Laden for 7 years thomas so why is it necessary to invade Pakistan which would start a civil war , just to “ get him “ as you liberals would say ? ,

You people are ok for containing Saddam but not Osama .

Originally posted by thomasjay
I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region

I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein didn’t have the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that the CIA thought he had .

I don’t acknowledge that he still wasn’t a credible threat to the security of this country and that of the entire middle east.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together

Not accorcing to the Butler Report , at that point in time , the Butler report concluded that the intelligence agencies of France, Germany , Great Britian , Australia and Russia all believed Saddam was a threat to the security of the region .

Originally posted by thomasjay
I think he might have gotten caught up in giving President George W Bush and the other members of the team what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to hear.

Who knows thomas, when it comes to national security the president must rely on the advice of the CIA , NSA and FBI to make a decision.

FrOriginally posted by thomasjay
Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong.

Fair enough thomas , I understand the reason for the US troops keeping a low profile for the current election as long as we both agree that had it not been for their previous sacrifices than this election would never have taken place
I already corrected mine frank, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
I retract my statement also.

Originally posted by thomasjay
You've really had the wool pulled over your eyes on this one,frank.Pakistan has played us like a fiddle.So they threw us a few overly hot al-Qaeda operatives as a bone to placate us,

I wouldn’t put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on the B-team Thomas , in case you forgot
He was the mastermind of 9/11 and he captured by the Pakistani police , and if the Pakistani government was in bed with Al-qaeda and the Taliban than why have the terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians doubled in the past 2 years?

Originally posted by thomasjay
it doesn't change the facts that the ISI wired money to the 9/11 hijackers,setup the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan has been al-Qaedas and the Talibans safe haven and base of operations since they were run out of Afghanistan.

That still is highly speculative, we don’t really know for sure because it was the Indian government who made the claim

http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

setup the Taliban in Afghanistan

Partly true , the Clinton administration also had a hand in supporting the Taliban

Originally posted by thomasjay
Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input

Getting Bin Laden was not the top priority after 9/11 and rightfully so, protecting this country from future attacks was and that’s what President George W Bush did .

To go into Pakistan blindly looking for Bin Laden would’ve been sheer lunacy.

Bin Laden is reported to be in the northern tribal region of Pakistan where the terrain is mountainous and he is supported by 90% of the tribes .

Going in would be sucide , killing him would cause a civil war in Pakistan.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region

.

Saddam never had the stockpiles of weapons that the CIA thought he had but I never acknowledged he wasn’t a threat .

Its’ just like pulling a fake gun on a policeman , you are going to get shot.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together

According to the Robb-Silvermann Report the intel agencies of France , Great Britain, Germany , Australia and Russia all believed that Sadddam was a threat to the region or had weapons of mass destruction


[quote]

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong. And I also pointed out to you that according to your article the US military had intentionally stayed in the background, especially on election day. That was a military decision,General Odiernos or above.Obviously they wouldn't want the POTUS pointing out they were there, so there's no reason for you to be offended, or for this thread to even exist.But it's giving us a chance to get to know each other frank, so I'm glad you started it.

Fair enough thomas , I retract my accusation as well

[quote="Frankg"]

Originally posted by thomasjay
That's true Frank, but it hardly makes him an extreme leftist. If you'd read the NJ article, rather than just taking a snip off an opposition campaign blog you'd understand the political machinations behind it. They didn't track John McCain because he didn't make enough votes in 2007, but I bet if they did you'd have seen his voting record move more in line with the conservative base during the same time.

My apologies

Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories

.http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, do you even read what you cite, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?From your source above:

I do have my GED which is nothing to sneeze at thomas, however my article did state that Barack Hussein Obama has been the first president ever, to skip the American Legion Heroes Ball.

The Comander in Chiefs Ball is a an inaugural event that was organized b President George W Bush in 2005 to honor the those CURRENT military members serviing in Iraq and Afganistan. .

President George W Bush attended the Heroes Ball and the Commander in Chiefs Ball and from I’ve read about Kevin Bacon it looks like he embellished the troops reaction to Barack Hussein Obama

Originally posted by thomasjay
When the president emerged waving from a giant backdrop lit with stars and stripes, the troops, including 300 invited wounded warriors from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and their families, erupted in jubilation

Gimme a break, the troops don’t LOVE Barack Hussein Obama , as a matter of fact , they don’t even like him, on the other hand the troops do love President George W Bush

.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I think what they're trying to say in a nice way frank, is that only real wingnuts would grab onto this as being an affront to the moh recipients or military in general.

I think the American Legion knows that you “don’t shit where you eat”
[quote]

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, my gullible friend. Let me give you some advice. If you get an email about someone with your last name who died leaving millions of dollars,do not give them your bank account number to wire the money into. It's a scam, just like this letter.

Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm


After the first WTC attacks what about the attacks that occurred in Russia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen,Egypt,Pakistan, India,and other countries?

Originally posted by thomasjay
That proves that President William Jefferson Clinton protected this country,for even longer,from terrorism,while other countries had been attacked.(it's almost painful imitating your mis-punctuation!)
Right frank? Frank...?

Protect this country ? Not by a longshot . President William Jefferson Clinton had higher pritorities than protecting this country Thomas, like a blowjob from Monica.
Bill Clinton had many chances to take Bin Laden into custody but he was too wrapped up with “other things” , Bill Clinton by his Indecisiveness is indirectly responsible for 9/11 .

Originally posted by thomasjay
Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input

But President George W Bush has “ contained” Bin Laden for 7 years thomas so why is it necessary to invade Pakistan which would start a civil war , just to “ get him “ as you liberals would say ? ,

You people are ok for containing Saddam but not Osama .

Originally posted by thomasjay
I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region

I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein didn’t have the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that the CIA thought he had .

I don’t acknowledge that he still wasn’t a credible threat to the security of this country and that of the entire middle east.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together

Not accorcing to the Butler Report , at that point in time , the Butler report concluded that the intelligence agencies of France, Germany , Great Britian , Australia and Russia all believed Saddam was a threat to the security of the region .

Originally posted by thomasjay
I think he might have gotten caught up in giving President George W Bush and the other members of the team what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to hear.

Who knows thomas, when it comes to national security the president must rely on the advice of the CIA , NSA and FBI to make a decision.

FrOriginally posted by thomasjay
Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong.

Fair enough thomas , I understand the reason for the US troops keeping a low profile for the current election as long as we both agree that had it not been for their previous sacrifices than this election would never have taken place
I already corrected mine frank, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
I retract my statement also.

Originally posted by thomasjay
You've really had the wool pulled over your eyes on this one,frank.Pakistan has played us like a fiddle.So they threw us a few overly hot al-Qaeda operatives as a bone to placate us,

I wouldn’t put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on the B-team Thomas , in case you forgot
He was the mastermind of 9/11 and he captured by the Pakistani police , and if the Pakistani government was in bed with Al-qaeda and the Taliban than why have the terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians doubled in the past 2 years?

Originally posted by thomasjay
it doesn't change the facts that the ISI wired money to the 9/11 hijackers,setup the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan has been al-Qaedas and the Talibans safe haven and base of operations since they were run out of Afghanistan.

That still is highly speculative, we don’t really know for sure because it was the Indian government who made the claim

http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

setup the Taliban in Afghanistan

Partly true , the Clinton administration also had a hand in supporting the Taliban

Originally posted by thomasjay
Not going in under hot pursuit when we could have gotten bin-Laden or at least his corpse was only delaying the inevitable imo. And by the way, Pakistan is in a civil war,it's just not being called that or reported on much in the msm. I started a thread on it, why don't you check it out, i'd appreciate your input

Getting Bin Laden was not the top priority after 9/11 and rightfully so, protecting this country from future attacks was and that’s what President George W Bush did .

To go into Pakistan blindly looking for Bin Laden would’ve been sheer lunacy.

Bin Laden is reported to be in the northern tribal region of Pakistan where the terrain is mountainous and he is supported by 90% of the tribes .

Going in would be sucide , killing him would cause a civil war in Pakistan.

Originally posted by thomasjay
I hope you realize that you just acknowledged that Saddam didn't have wmds and wasn't a threat to the US or the region

.

Saddam never had the stockpiles of weapons that the CIA thought he had but I never acknowledged he wasn’t a threat .

Its’ just like pulling a fake gun on a policeman , you are going to get shot.

Originally posted by thomasjay
Saddam hadn't convinced most foreign intel agencies though, or we would have had the same sort of coalition going in that President George HW Bush put together

According to the Robb-Silvermann Report the intel agencies of France , Great Britain, Germany , Australia and Russia all believed that Sadddam was a threat to the region or had weapons of mass destruction

Originally posted by thomasjay
Frank, we've already been over this. When you cited an article proving that they had been involved I corrected my mistake.I was wrong. And I also pointed out to you that according to your article the US military had intentionally stayed in the background, especially on election day. That was a military decision,General Odiernos or above.Obviously they wouldn't want the POTUS pointing out they were there, so there's no reason for you to be offended, or for this thread to even exist.But it's giving us a chance to get to know each other frank, so I'm glad you started it.

Fair enough thomas , I retract my accusation as well

Frankg wrote:My apologies
Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Right Frank, but you still seem to be missing the political machinations part.

Frankg wrote:Gimme a break, the troops don’t LOVE Barack Hussein Obama , as a matter of fact , they don’t even like him, on the other hand the troops do love President George W Bush

The troops aren't monolithic in their politics or anything else outside of commitment to their country and each other in the field. They are individuals just like you and me, Frank. I've been around military people all my life and live a stones throw from 3 bases, so I know this quite well. And that's President Barack Hussein Obama and former President George W Bush.Outside of frankworld it is anyway.

Frankg wrote:Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

Dammit Frank, there goes your reading comprehension again. Right at the top of your link:

Summary: Forwarded email alleges that the urban legend debunking site Snopes.com is 'owned by a flaming liberal' who is 'in the tank for Obama' and cannot be trusted to provide reliable information.

Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Oct. 2008
Status: False

Frankg wrote:I wouldn’t put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on the B-team Thomas

I wouldn't either Frank. What I said was that he was too hot to not turn over.

Frankg wrote:if the Pakistani government was in bed with Al-qaeda and the Taliban than why have the terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians doubled in the past 2 years?

It's not the Pakistani government as a whole, it's elements within the military and ISI.

Frankg wrote:That still is highly speculative, we don’t really know for sure because it was the Indian government who made the claim

Yes, it is very complex, everthing with Pakistan is, especially when you throw India into the mix. But did you read the whole page you linked to? further down it summarizes that

We still tend to believe that a transfer did occur, but this is only a marginal, balance of probabilities assessment, in no way a certainty.

Overall that was a very good link Frank, I commend you.

Frankg wrote:Partly true , the Clinton administration also had a hand in supporting the Taliban

As did the GW Bush administration until 9/10/01. We could go tit for tat with that line of argument forever. I'd really suggest you read Steve Colls 'Ghost Wars' and Michael Scheuers 'Imperial Hubris'. Both are very objective.

Frankg wrote:President William Jefferson Clinton had higher pritorities than protecting this country Thomas, like a blowjob from Monica.[/b]

Tremble and bow down before the Mighty Clenis Frank! He could protect the country, get a bj and eat a pretzel without choking all at the same time.

Frankg wrote:Going in would be sucide , killing him would cause a civil war in Pakistan.

Wow. You're willing to let him go free and escape justice because you're worried about Pakistani public opinion? They already hate us and are already in a civil war.

Frankg wrote:According to the Robb-Silvermann Report the intel agencies of France , Great Britain, Germany , Australia and Russia all believed that Sadddam was a threat to the region or had weapons of mass destruction

It's the Robb-Silberman report and I don't believe you've read it for yourself, because it doesn't say that.

Frankg wrote:Fair enough thomas , I retract my accusation as well

Thank you